Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90148 Case Number: LCR12809 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BRAKEWAY PLASTICS (IRL) LTD - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. On the evidence presented, the Court is satisfied that early
in his employment the claimant was paid overtime for additional
hours worked and that such payments were a condition of his
employment.
The unilateral withdrawal of these payments was unreasonable and
the requirement to work unpaid overtime insisted upon by the
Company bordered on exploitation. Accordingly the Court considers
that the dismissal of the claimant for refusing to work unpaid
overtime was unfair and recommends that he be paid a sum of #250
by way of compensation.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90148 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12809
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BRAKEWAY PLASTICS (IRL) LTD
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a general
operative in the Company on 20th September, 1989. He worked a
forty hour week. The Company operated a three cycle shift system
with the night shift only attracting a premium payment. Some time
after the worker commenced employment the operating system changed
to a two cycle shift with no night work. Occasionally the worker
reported for overtime on Saturdays. He was paid for such work at
the flat hourly rate. More recently he was required to work
overtime (when he finished his shift) without any payment or
compensation. On 18th January, 1990, having finished his eight
hour shift the worker was requested to stay on duty, working
overtime. He advised his supervisor that he would work overtime
only if he was paid for doing so. He was told that no overtime
payment would be made and that he need not report for duty the
next day if he did not work the extra hours. He was also told
that his P45 would be in the post. The worker did not work the
extra hours. He called to his employer the next day at 11.00 a.m.
to confirm the reason for his dismissal and was advised that it
was because of his refusal to work overtime as requested. The
worker sought a Rights Commissioner's investigation into his
dismissal but the employer did not agree to it. On 1st March,
1990, the worker requested the Labour Court to investigate his
complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing to accept the Court's recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 29th March, 1990. The Company did not
attend at the investigation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was dismissed because of his refusal to work
unpaid overtime. He did not ever cause any problems at work
or do anything to warrant dismissal.
2. He does not have a reference from his employer. Due to
the fact that he was dismissed and that he does not have a
reference the worker feels that he will not be successful in
securing alternative employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. On the evidence presented, the Court is satisfied that early
in his employment the claimant was paid overtime for additional
hours worked and that such payments were a condition of his
employment.
The unilateral withdrawal of these payments was unreasonable and
the requirement to work unpaid overtime insisted upon by the
Company bordered on exploitation. Accordingly the Court considers
that the dismissal of the claimant for refusing to work unpaid
overtime was unfair and recommends that he be paid a sum of #250
by way of compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
___25th___April,__1990. ___________________
A. McG. / U. S. Chairman